Hi KatolaZ,

I agree with you: using "cd build; cmake ../" with *the final purpose*
of installing the spinner in the system is a contorsionism.

Although any user on planet Earth will install the spinner in any OS.
With or without systemd.

But, what happen in the case of a developer? For each failed attempt,
all the garbaje generated by cmake must be sent to the trash by hand,
because there is no 'cmake clean'.

So, keeping it separatelly makes sense in such cases.

Cheers,

Aitor.

On 26/11/15 13:33, KatolaZ wrote:
> Again, sorry for playing auldie auntie, but why on planet Earth should
> the user be requested to "mkdir build" if a directory named "build" is
> actually required every single time one attempts to compile the
> package? Also, why not allowing just "cmake" on the main directory
> instead than using a contorsionism like "cd build; cmake ../"?!?!?
>
> There is no widely used package out there for which compilation
> requires to create directories and/or wander around the
> filesystem. The striking majority of packages is built and installed
> just by typying "tar -zxf ${filename}.tar.gz; cd ${filename};
> configure (or cmake); make; make install". That's for a simple reason:
> principle of least surprise.
>
> Sorry again, but I really can't see why we should unduly
> overcomplicate things that are usually just simple...
>
> My2Cents
>
> KatolaZ